Printed Page 1240, Jan. 26
| Printed Page 1260, Jan. 26
|
Printed Page 1240, Jan. 26
| Printed Page 1260, Jan. 26
| STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Wednesday, January 26. Douglas E. McTeer, Jr. James P. Harrelson James H. Harrison Donald W. "Don" Beatty
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.
H. 4332 -- Reps. Sheheen, Rudnick and Stuart: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-19-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, SO AS TO REAPPORTION AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE DISTRICTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES CENSUS OF 1990, TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES ON BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN VACANCIES MUST BE FILLED.
H. 4333 -- Reps. Sheheen, Snow, Rudnick and Stuart: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-1-15 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTION
H. 4070 -- Reps. Sheheen and Wilkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-100, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS USED IN THE ETHICS, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1991, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEFINITION OF "CANDIDATE" ALSO MEANS A PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF WRITE-IN VOTES ARE SOLICITED.
Rep. SHARPE moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, February 2, which was adopted.
H. 4581 -- Reps. R. Smith, Sharpe, Stone, Huff and Rudnick: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN AIKEN COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE AND ADD NEW PRECINCTS, PROVIDE THAT THE PRECINCTS ARE AS SHOWN ON AN OFFICIAL MAP ON FILE WITH THE DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICAL SERVICES OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND PROVIDE THAT THE POLLING PLACES FOR THE PRECINCTS MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY THE AIKEN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION WITH THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE AIKEN COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.
The following Bills and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
S. 1066 -- Senator Leatherman: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAY OF DECEMBER 9, 1993, MISSED BY THE STUDENTS OF SOUTHSIDE MIDDLE SCHOOL, FLORENCE CAREER CENTER, AND SOUTH FLORENCE HIGH SCHOOL OF FLORENCE SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE IN FLORENCE COUNTY WHEN THESE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO WATER PROBLEMS ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.
H. 3327 -- Rep. Snow: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-17-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALTWATER-FRESHWATER DIVIDING LINES ON RIVERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE LINE ON THE COOPER RIVER AND ALLOW CRAB POT FISHING.
H. 3357 -- Rep. Snow: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION ON THE TRAPPING OR SNARING OF QUAIL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS BY THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO TRAP QUAIL.
H. 3549 -- Rep. Snow: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-854 SO AS TO ALLOW THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO SET SEASONS AND BAG LIMITS FOR HUNTING AND TAKING CROWS CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE LIMITATIONS AND PENALTIES.
Rep. SNOW explained the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3631 -- Reps. Elliott, G. Bailey, Houck, McKay, Askins, Robinson, Davenport, Stone, Byrd, Cato, A. Young and Kinon: A BILL TO
Reps. CORNING, J. BAILEY, WRIGHT, ALLISON, DAVENPORT, J. BROWN, RISER, SHARPE, D. SMITH, ROBINSON and TROTTER objected to the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3304 -- Rep. Cato: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-850, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONS WATER SKIING OR RIDING ON A SURFBOARD OR SIMILAR OBJECT, SO AS TO MORE CLEARLY DEFINE PERSONAL FLOTATION DEVICE REQUIREMENTS.
The Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\N05\7546BDW.94), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking lines 20-21 and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Section 50-21-850 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Section 1269, Act 181 of 1993, is further amended to read:/
Amend further, Section 50-21-850, line 24, after /object/ by inserting /being towed by a motorized watercraft/, so that when amended, the section reads:
/Section 50-21-850.(A)No person shall may water ski or ride on a surfboard or similar object being towed by a motorized watercraft unless he is wearing a ski belt, a life preserver, or similar equipment which will keep the person afloat should he fall or be thrown into the water United States Coast Guard approved personal flotation device, Type I, Type II, Type III, or Type V. Each personal flotation device must be fastened properly, in good and serviceable condition, and the proper size for the person wearing it.
(B) The following persons are exempt from the requirements of this section;
(2) persons holding ratings of first class or higher in the American Water Ski Association are exempt from this requirement.;
(3) windsurfers and sailboarders are exempt from this requirement./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. SNOW explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Rep. SNOW explained the Bill.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. WILKINS moved to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill was given a third reading, which was agreed to.
H. 4070 -- Reps. Sheheen and Wilkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-100, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS USED IN THE ETHICS, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1991, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEFINITION OF "CANDIDATE" ALSO MEANS A PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF WRITE-IN VOTES ARE SOLICITED.
Rep. WILKINS, with unanimous consent, proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\N05\7579DW.94), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 29, page 14, beginning on line 13, by striking /At least fifteen days before an election, a certified campaign report must be filed showing contributions of more than one hundred dollars and expenditures to or by the candidate or committee for the period ending twenty days before the election./ and inserting /At least fifteen days before an election, a certified campaign report must be filed showing contributions of more than one hundred dollars and expenditures to or by the candidate or committee for the period ending twenty days before the election./
Amend further, line 43, after /(B)/ by inserting /and (D)/.
Amend further, beginning on line 44, by striking /in the following calendar quarter/ and inserting /within thirty days of the end of the prior quarter/.
Amend title to conform.
The Bill, as amended, was read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.
Rep. WHITE moved to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill was given a third reading.
H. 4333 -- Reps. Sheheen, Snow, Rudnick and Stuart: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-1-15 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE ELECTED COMMENCING WITH THE 1994 GENERAL ELECTION, TO DESIGNATE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS THE SUBMITTING AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSE REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN CONTAINED IN THIS ACT TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AND TO REPEAL SECTION 2-1-10 RELATING TO ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE ELECTED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Rep. WHITE spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.
Rep. HODGES asked unanimous consent to allow members to submit statements for the Journal on reapportionment, which was agreed to.
Rep. WHITE spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.
The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.
The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill on third reading.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Allison Askins Bailey, G. Bailey, J. Baker Barber Baxley Boan Brown, H. Carnell Cato Chamblee Cooper Corning Cromer Davenport Delleney Fair Farr Felder Fulmer Gamble Gonzales Graham Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harvin Haskins Hodges Houck Huff Hutson Jaskwhich Jennings Keegan Kelley Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klauber Koon Lanford Law Littlejohn Marchbanks Martin Mattos McAbee McCraw McElveen McKay McTeer Meacham Neilson Phillips Quinn Richardson Riser Robinson Rogers Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Shissias Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Snow Spearman Stille Stoddard Stone Stuart Thomas Townsend Trotter Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Walker Wilder, D. Wilder, J. Wilkes Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young, A. Young, R.
Anderson Beatty Breeland Brown, J. Byrd Canty Cobb-Hunter Elliott Govan Harrelson Harwell Hines Inabinett Kennedy McMahand Moody-Lawrence Neal Rhoad Scott Whipper White Williams
So, the Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the Senate.
Since I do not consider myself a "career politician", the efforts to redraw districts to increase minority representation is not a personal matter (Post-Courier, Jan. 23, 1-B, "Republicans, Blacks Reunited"). Democrats hold office due to the loyalty of blacks who make up an increasingly high percentage of the party's membership; therefore, it should not be too much to ask that this loyalty be recognized and that we agree that blacks should have the opportunity to serve in elected positions in proportion to their party membership, or most importantly, on the basis of their percentage in the general population.
After holding his seat since 1975, and obviously looking forward to retirement before the next reapportionment, Representative Don Holt's outrage at the thought of his district becoming an electable black district is an insult to those in the black community who have supported him over the years. His intentional misrepresentation of the facts is hypocritical and demeaning. The minority population in District 109 can be enhanced without touching District 118.
It was implied in the article that all the plans that were offered to strengthen District 109 as a Minority District were initiated by me. After agreeing that District 110 be extended to accommodate population growth East of the Cooper, Mr. Bailey presented a plan that would shift Sullivan's Island to District 110. This was rejected by Mr. Hallman. He then suggested a plan that includes Remley's Point and splits the Hobcaw Point sub-division. Instead of accepting credit for those plans, I offered my proposal for strengthening the District as an amendment to the Reapportionment Bill. This proposal makes the least disruptive changes.
Mr. Bailey stated that the peninsula district should maintain its character "rather than it be part in the City of Charleston, part in the town of Mt. Pleasant and part in Charleston county." Mr. Bailey failed to share with the reporter that his district presently covers heavily populated minority precincts West of the Ashley. Maintaining the character of the city is not an issue during annexation and should not be an issue during reapportionment. Rivers, marshes, creeks and streams have been crossed in order to annex areas into the City of Charleston.
White Democrats need to answer the big question, "should blacks, loyal Democrats, seek to share in the power of elective office?" Surely the time has come for Democrats to accept the idea of self-determination for black citizens and accommodate this goal even against their self-interest. A perfect example of a gracious statesman was the decision of Senator Isadore Lourie, D- Richland County, to retire from the Senate easing the transition to a minority district now being served by the young black Senator Darrell Jackson.
Although District 109 is considered an "at risk" district due to the racial pattern of voting in Charleston and elsewhere, I have enjoyed the opportunity to serve and work for and with constituents of diverse racial, cultural and economic backgrounds. I would like to assure the same opportunity for others who may follow me.
Rep. LUCILLE S. WHIPPER
There is an inherent problem in being in the majority - the majority enfolds around its members to the exclusion of those who are not apart of its group. The insensitivity is enormous and reflects itself in the critical issues which must be addressed on occasions.
Yesterday, January 25, 1994 and again today, this body has demonstrated its unwillingness to forge a policy of inclusion - equity and fairness and has chosen to protect incumbency and the right of the white majority to rule at the expense of African-Americans who deserve to be fully represented. It is clear, in my mind, that the action represents a strategy of the majority race and party affiliation had little or nothing to do with the outcome.
Nothing highlights this farce more intensely than the collaboration of whites who represent majority-Black districts and others who I know depend upon African-American voters to support their candidacies. Members of my own delegation, one who represents a majority black
The question, does minority areas which have sufficient numbers for representation have a right to be represented has been answered by the S.C. House of Representatives - NO! Especially if it may require the loss of a seat or two or nine or ten currently held by members of the majority race.
We have permitted a golden moment to pass us by. The application of a little justice and fairness from the majority could have sent a signal to the world that South Carolina was making an upward swing in race relations.
I know now, more than ever, I am here but in the eyes of my white colleagues, I am not supposed to be here either.
Rep. RALPH W. CANTY
Today, Wednesday, January 25, 1994, the above-referenced House Bill (H. 4333) passed on third reading.
I am taking this opportunity to voice my extreme displeasure with the passage of this bill. Numerous avenues were presented to effectuate a greater proportion of representation for minority citizens of our State. These opportunities were blatantly ignored in favor of the status quo, exclusion versus inclusion, and full participation of all citizens regardless of race, color,creed, religion, or national origin.
As Chairman, of the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus, I find these actions reprehensible. It is unconscionable to think that in 1994 intelligent men and woman of this fine body would make such an inexcusable decision.
One-third of our state's population should have no difficulty garnering at least one-third of the seats in the General Assembly. Any other alternative is unacceptable.
We simply need more members of the House of Representatives who are willing to do the right thing.
Rep. JOE BROWN
Printed Page 1240, Jan. 26
| Printed Page 1260, Jan. 26
|