South Carolina Senate Journal January 31, 2001 - South Carolina Legislature Online

South Carolina General Assembly
114th Session, 2001-2002
Journal of the Senate

Printed Page 503 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

Wednesday, January 31, 2001
(Statewide Session)

~~Indicates Matter Stricken~~
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 2:00 P.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Beloved, St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his Second Letter, Chapter 3:17:

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Let us pray.

Our Father, as we struggle in our human bondage with the yearning for the better life, we pray that our thinking may not be distorted by the errors of human thought, nor obscured by the ambiguities of individual perceptions.

But give us the grace to understand now, AND FOR ALL TIME, that mankind's fundamental freedom begins only when a person makes the great surrender to the Spirit of God.

So, for us who are designers and mechanics of a way of life, give us the gifts of the Spirit that we may see our political vocation as a steward's concern for the wholeness of human life... in society! For God so loved the world!
Amen.

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

Point of Quorum

At 2:09 A.M., Senator MOORE made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was present. The Senate resumed.

VETO SUSTAINED

S. 250 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman and Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 2-17-30, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LOBBYIST'S REPORTING OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TIME FOR FILING REPORTS; TO AMEND SECTION 2-17-35, AS

Printed Page 504 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

AMENDED, RELATING TO LOBBYIST'S PRINCIPAL'S REPORTING OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TIME FOR FILING REPORTS; TO AMEND SECTION 2-17-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STATE AGENCY REPORT OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TIME FOR FILING THE REPORTS; TO AMEND SECTION 2-17-90, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ACTS PROHIBITED OF LOBBYISTS' PRINCIPALS, ACTS PROHIBITED OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, EXCEPTIONS, AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO EXCLUDE CABINET OFFICERS; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, IN ADDITION TO THE RESPONDENT, TO WAIVE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED WHEN A COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RECIPIENTS OF CERTAIN CAMPAIGN REPORTS AND COPIES OF THEM AND THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION REVIEW, SO AS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT TO SEND CAMPAIGN REPORTS TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1366, RELATING TO THE PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF CERTIFIED CAMPAIGN REPORTS, SO AS TO ELIMINATE THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AS A LOCATION OF THESE REPORTS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1372, RELATING TO TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS OF RULES ON CAMPAIGN REPORTS, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION FOR THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING ERRORS OR OMISSIONS ON CAMPAIGN REPORTS.

Printed Page 505 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

State of South Carolina
Office of the Governor
P. O. Box 11829
Columbia, SC 29211
November 16, 2000

The Honorable Robert L. Peeler
Lieutenant Governor
The State House
Columbia, S.C. 29201

The Honorable John W. Drummond
President Pro Tempore, S. C. Senate
The State House
Columbia, S. C. 29201

Gentlemen:

I am hereby returning with my objections Senate Bill 250 (Word version), which, among other things, would change state laws relating to the financing of election campaigns.

There are three reasons that I am vetoing this legislation. First, the legislation does not accomplish meaningful campaign finance reform. Second, the legislation would result in a flood of politically motivated lawsuits in the critical 50-day period before an election. Finally, I am vetoing this legislation because a key portion of this legislation is unconstitutional, and, consequently, would be declared unenforceable by the state and federal courts.

Citizens should not be misled into thinking that S. 250 accomplishes the goal of meaningful campaign finance reform. It does not. Because of the importance of contributions to political parties and non-candidate committees in political campaigns, we must address that side of the campaign finance equation as well.

Furthermore, under current law, because of the danger that candidates will make frivolous allegations in the waning days of election campaigns, the Ethics Commission cannot accept a complaint concerning a candidate during the 50-day period leading up to the election. Section 7 of the Bill would allow any person to file a lawsuit in circuit court alleging violations of the election laws and request an injunction in the 50-day period before an election. The judge would have to hold a hearing within 10 days, at which time the court could

Printed Page 506 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

either dismiss the petition or issue an injunction. Even if the judge were to dismiss a frivolous lawsuit after that hearing, the target of the politically motivated lawsuit would be in court litigating with an adversary rather than out on the campaign trail talking to potential voters.

Finally, Section 14 of the legislation is unconstitutional. It attempts to provide a new definition of the term "influence the outcome of an elective office." This is a key definition because an expenditure to "influence the outcome of an elective office" can subject the maker of the expenditure to disclosure and regulation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in which South Carolina is located, has held that campaign finance laws that apply to efforts to influence the outcome of an elected office can be applied only to express advocacy that uses the "magic words" of express advocacy cited by the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976). In direct contrast to the legal requirements, subsections (b) and (c) attempt to go beyond express advocacy that uses the "magic words" and also subject additional types of political advocacy to regulation.

The Fourth Circuit recently noted that decisions applying Buckley have "categorically rejected any attempt to dilute the bright dash line express advocacy standard." Perry v. Bartlett, 2000 WL 1468449, at *4 (4th Cir. October 3, 2000). Last year, in upholding a challenge by the North Carolina Citizens for Life to a North Carolina statute, this Fourth Circuit ruled that such legislation " 'blankets with uncertainty' the entire field of campaign politics compel[ling] the speaker to hedge and trim... Burdening speech of this sort is unacceptable in an area of such crucial import to our representative democracy." North Carolina Citizens for Life v. Bartlett, 168 F. 3d 705, 713 (4th Cir. 1999).

Unsurprisingly, in papers filed with the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in July the South Carolina Citizens for Life have already threatened to seek an injunction and attorneys' fees against the State Ethics Commission in the event S. 250 becomes law. I have no doubt that the court would have required the State of South Carolina to pay those attorneys' fees if this legislation became law. See, e.g., Federal Election Commission v. Christian Action Network, Inc., 110 F. 3d 1049 (4th Cir. 1997) (awarding attorneys' fees to the Christian Action Network where Federal Election Commission had argued express words of advocacy were not required to regulate political speech as long as the speech "unmistakably expressly advocated" the election or defeat of a candidate).

Printed Page 507 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

As the Chief Executive of this State, I am bound to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States." That obligation counsels against signing legislation that is unconstitutional.

Despite the problems with this legislation, there is still a need to undertake a comprehensive examination of our campaign finance laws in South Carolina. That is why, effective today, I am issuing an Executive Order that creates an Advisory Campaign Reform Study Commission as outlined in Section 33 of S. 250. I will ask that commission to provide a report to me and to the General Assembly by April 16, 2001.

Sincerely,
/s/ Jim Hodges
cc Clerk of the Senate

The veto by the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator THOMAS spoke on the veto.

Senator THOMAS moved that the veto by the Governor be overridden.

Senator PASSAILAIGUE argued contra to the motion.

ACTING PRESIDENT PRESIDES

At 2:33 P.M., Senator MARTIN assumed the Chair.

Senator PASSAILAIGUE continued arguing contra to the motion.

The question was put: "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

AYES

Alexander                 Bauer                     Branton
Courson                   Fair                      Giese
Gregory                   Grooms                    Hawkins
Hayes                     Leatherman                Martin
McConnell                 Mescher                   Peeler
Ravenel                   Richardson                Ritchie

Printed Page 508 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

Ryberg                    Smith, J. Verne           Thomas
Verdin                    Waldrep                   Wilson

Total--24

NAYS

Anderson                  Drummond                  Elliott
Ford                      Glover *                  Hutto
Jackson                   Land                      Leventis
Matthews                  McGill                    Moore
O'Dell                    Passailaigue              Patterson
Pinckney                  Rankin                    Reese
Saleeby                   Setzler                   Short

Total--21

*This Senator was not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken and the vote was recorded by leave of the Senate, with unanimous consent.

The veto of the Governor was sustained, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Statement by Senators LEVENTIS, LAND, O'DELL, McGILL REESE, ELLIOTT, ANDERSON, HUTTO, SHORT MATTHEWS, PATTERSON, FORD, MOORE AND SETZLER

We voted to sustain Governor Hodges' veto of S. 250 because he has set forth a plan to achieve a bipartisan, permanent solution for campaign finance reform. This Bill provided a temporary and ineffective solution to the problems of campaign finance.

We support Governor Hodges' creation of a bipartisan, independent committee to provide real campaign finance reform. With no elected officials serving on this committee, reforms can be properly addressed without being tainted with personal, political goals.

As written, S. 250 is an unconstitutional Bill. Constitutional experts, media and other interested groups agree the Bill cannot stand up to judicial scrutiny because it attempts to regulate constitutionally protected political activities.

Furthermore, the legislation does not accomplish the goal of meaningful campaign finance reform because it does not adequately address contributions to political parties and non-candidate committees

Printed Page 509 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

in political campaigns. Contributions to these groups are not restricted. The practical effect of this legislation would be a diversion of political contributions to unregulated groups that could accept unlimited contributions in secret.

Finally, the legislation would allow people to file lawsuits during the 50-day period leading up to the election. This would inevitably lead to frivolous lawsuits. Every candidate could be dragged into lawyers' offices and courts in the 50-day period before elections instead of being allowed to campaign.

Statement by Senator MOORE

I voted to sustain the Governor's veto of S. 250. The Governor has appointed a bipartisan committee to provide campaign finance reform.

As the Chairman of last year's conference committee reviewing S. 250, I did support the intent of disclosing campaign finance "soft money" and I continue to do so.

During the months since the state Senate adjourned, I have had the opportunity to review U.S. District Judge Dennis Shedd's ruling in September 2000 in which he raised several constitutional points regarding independent expenditures.

Also, I have had the opportunity to review an opinion by a constitutional law professor from the University of South Carolina who has raised serious constitutional questions regarding the same. Additionally, the S.C. Ethics Commission issued serious constitutional questions regarding S. 250.

Of significant importance to me of late is the correspondence and discussion from the Executive Director of the S.C. Citizens for Life. In this memo, this group gave us four important reasons why they support sustaining the Governor's veto:

(1) the definition of independent expenditures;

(2) the definition of ballot measure committee;

(3) the names must be on printed matter; and

(4) the pending results of the study commission.

Finally, I am most concerned by those Senators who have stated today in this debate that they admit to constitutional defectiveness but will vote to override the veto and "let the courts straighten out the results." And coincidentally the application of S. 250 will not even apply to the state Senators for the 2004 election.

Printed Page 510 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

Statement by Senator REESE

I voted "no' because this Bill is not strong enough. This Bill allows special interest groups to be held hostage by a political party because if they do not make the "proper contributions" to the politically correct entities, then their legislative interest can be held hostage and, for or against them, depending on who is looking.

Instead, I would prefer for us to pass a stronger, better Bill like the one I introduced in the 2000 Session that limits the amount of money that can be spent on each political contest. For this reason, I am voting "no" until we can pass a stronger version, very similar to the one I introduced last session that will not hold special interest groups hostage.

PRESIDENT PRESIDES

At 2:55 P.M., the PRESIDENT assumed the Chair.

Doctor of the Day

Senator J. VERNE SMITH introduced Dr. Patricia P. Westmoreland of Greenville, S.C., Doctor of the Day.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

The following were introduced:

S. 242 (Word version) -- Senators Waldrep and Branton: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-39-90, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSPECTION BY COURT OFFICIALS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS OF RECORDS MAINTAINED BY PAWNBROKERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT RECORDS AND COPIES OF RECORDS REGARDING DESCRIPTIONS OF ITEMS PAWNED MUST BE CLEAR AND LEGIBLE.
l:\council\bills\dka\3986mm01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

S. 243 (Word version) -- Senator Waldrep: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-490, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF RESTITUTION FEES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT

Printed Page 511 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

THE TOTAL COLLECTION FEE MUST NOT EXCEED THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL RESTITUTION PROGRAM.
l:\council\bills\skb\18044som01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Corrections and Penology.

S. 244 (Word version) -- Senators Ritchie, Richardson and Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-40-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN APPLICANT DESIRING TO FORM A CHARTER SCHOOL MAY EITHER FILE THE APPLICATION WITH THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MAY FILE THE APPLICATION DIRECTLY WITH THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION WHICH SHALL ACT AS THE SPONSOR OF THE CHARTER SCHOOL AND AS THE APPROVING ENTITY FOR THAT CHARTER SCHOOL.
l:\council\bills\gjk\20163sd01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.

S. 245 (Word version) -- Senators Reese and Branton: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 9-1-1790 AND 9-11-90, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE EARNED WITHOUT AFFECTING RETIREMENT BENEFITS BY RETIREES UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHO RETURN TO COVERED EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO PERMANENTLY INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FROM TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IN A FISCAL YEAR.
l:\council\bills\bbm\9861htc01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 246 (Word version) -- Senators Waldrep and Branton: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2110, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM TAX ON THE SALE OR LEASE OF CERTAIN ITEMS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, IF THE MAXIMUM TAX IS PAID ON A LEASED VEHICLE DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE, NO

Printed Page 512 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

ADDITIONAL TAX IS DUE IF THE LESSEE PURCHASES THE LEASED VEHICLE.
l:\council\bills\psd\7000ac01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 247 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell and Branton: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO "GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALES" SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE A SALE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TO THE LESSEE OF THAT VEHICLE IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET, AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-130 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO "SALES PRICE" SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE A MOTOR VEHICLE SOLD TO A LESSEE DURING OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF A LEASE IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET.
l:\s-res\gfm\026leas.whb.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 248 (Word version) -- Senators Martin, Leventis, Gregory, Branton and Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2200, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MAY PROMULGATE REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION, PRESERVATION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND USE OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS AND LAND OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, HIKING, ROCK CLIMBING, OPERATION OF MOTORIZED AND NONMOTORIZED VEHICLES, SWIMMING, CAMPING, HORSE RIDING, OPERATION OF BOATS, POSSESSION OF PETS, AND GATHERING PLANTS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
l:\council\bills\swb\5130djc01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.

S. 249 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 11, TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF GAME, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-24 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE HUNTING OF

Printed Page 513 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

MIGRATORY WATERFOWL IN THE GILLS CREEK WATERSHED IN LANCASTER COUNTY WITHIN THREE HUNDRED YARDS OF A DWELLING WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT AND PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.
l:\council\bills\swb\5124djc01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.

S. 250 (Word version) -- Senators Waldrep, Branton and Hawkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-11-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES, AND THE PRESUMPTION THAT HEART OR RESPIRATORY DISEASES OCCURRING IN FIREFIGHTERS AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLICABLE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
l:\council\bills\swb\5008djc01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 251 (Word version) -- Senators Alexander, Branton and Waldrep: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-430, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO UNLAWFUL USES OF A TELEPHONE, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE UNLAWFUL USE OF COMPUTER, E-MAIL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SECTION.
l:\council\bills\swb\5091djc01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 252 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes, Branton, Alexander, Ravenel, Leatherman, Grooms, J. Verne Smith, Peeler, Giese, Wilson, Gregory, Hawkins and Ritchie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 61-4-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST SELLERS AND BUYERS FOR THE UNLAWFUL PURCHASE OF BEER OR WINE BY A MINOR, SO AS TO PROHIBIT A MINOR FROM BEING CHARGED WITH UNLAWFULLY PURCHASING BEER OR WINE IF THE MINOR

Printed Page 514 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

MADE THE PURCHASE AS PART OF AN INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
l:\council\bills\nbd\11128ac01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 253 (Word version) -- Senators Alexander, Branton and Waldrep: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-16-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMPUTER CRIME OFFENSES AND PENALTIES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF THE GAIN OR LOSS RESULTING FROM A COMPUTER CRIME FROM IN EXCESS OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO IN EXCESS OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ORDER FOR THE CRIME TO BE IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF THE GAIN OR LOSS RESULTING FROM A COMPUTER CRIME BELOW WHICH THE OFFENSE IS COMPUTER CRIME IN THE SECOND DEGREE FROM NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.
l:\council\bills\swb\5092djc01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 254 (Word version) -- Senators Mescher and Branton: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LIMITATION OF CIVIL ACTIONS OTHER THAN FOR THE RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY, BY ADDING SECTION 15-3-690 SO AS TO PROVIDE A LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTIONS AGAINST REGISTERED SURVEYORS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING AND TO PROVIDE WHEN THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS NOT AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 15-3-640, RELATING TO THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTIONS TO RECOVER DAMAGES BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE OR UNSAFE CONDITION OF AN IMPROVEMENT TO REAL PROPERTY, SO AS TO REMOVE SURVEYING AS AN IMPROVEMENT TO REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 15-3-670, RELATING TO WHEN THIS PARTICULAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS NOT AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE, SO AS TO REMOVE SURVEYING AND LAND SURVEYING.
l:\council\bills\gjk\20144sd01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Printed Page 515 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

S. 255 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes, Branton, Ryberg, Ravenel, Giese, Grooms, Alexander, Wilson, Peeler, J. Verne Smith, Leatherman, Hawkins and Ritchie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO OFFENSES INVOLVING WEAPONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION FOR THE TERM "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSES OF DISTRIBUTION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND TRAFFICKING OF NARCOTIC DRUGS.
l:\council\bills\ggs\22706cm01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 256 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell and Branton: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-3-240, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF OFFICERS BY THE GOVERNOR, SO AS TO DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR TO REMOVE VARIOUS STATE OFFICERS FOR OTHER THAN CAUSE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 1-3-250, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE APPEAL BY AN OFFICER REMOVED BY THE GOVERNOR, SO AS TO CONFORM THESE APPEALS TO THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THIS ACT.
l:\council\bills\bbm\9859htc01.doc

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 257 (Word version) -- Senators Bauer and Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO JERRY A. MILLER FOR HIS LEADERSHIP IN ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE IRMO AND CHAPIN COMMUNITIES WHILE SERVING AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE IRMO-CHAPIN RECREATION DISTRICT.
l:\council\bills\pt\1168dw01.doc

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

H. 3362 (Word version) -- Reps. Fleming and Wilder: A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF MEETINGS BY THE UNION COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the Local and Uncontested Calendar without reference.

Printed Page 516 . . . . . Wednesday, January 31, 2001

H. 3387 (Word version) -- Reps. Miller, Battle, Kelley, Barfield, Keegan, Snow, Edge and Witherspoon: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE PROFOUND SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY UPON THE DEATH OF DR. ROBERT CATHCART SMITH OF MURRELLS INLET AND TO EXTEND DEEPEST SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 3421 (Word version) -- Reps. Wilkins and Harrison: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE JEAN HOEFER TOAL, TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AT 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2001.

The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Invitations.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Senator RANKIN from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a majority favorable with amendment and Senator HUTTO a minority unfavorable report on:

S. 62 (Word version) -- Senators Mescher, Grooms, McGill and Branton: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-31-20 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE AUTHORITY APPOINTED FROM HORRY, BERKELEY, AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES MUST BE CUSTOMERS OF THE AUTHORITY AND RESIDE IN AUTHORITY TERRITORY.