SC Senate – H3047 (roll call voting) recall motion debate footage

by Jonathon Hill

3 comments

1 Jonathon Hill { 04.28.10 at 9:44 pm }

Response from Senator Kevin Bryant:

Good to hear from you Jonathon,

My remarks to Sen. Martin were intened to get him to publicly commit to a sub-committee hearing should the motion fail or pass.

If the motion did pass, there would probably have someones name on it placing it on the contested calendar. However, he could still get a public sub-committee hearing even if the Senate did not take up the bill. This public hearing would have ramped up the public support for this bill increasing the chances for the votes to put the bill on special order.

If the motion failed, we would have had a commitment for a sub
committee hearing also.

Sen. Davis was well aware I supported his motion, however, he told me he would withdraw it therefore I didn’t see the necessity to speak in favor of the motion.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin L. Bryant
SC Senate 3
104-A North Avenue
Anderson, South Carolina 29626
c-864.202.8394
http://www.kevinbryant.com

2 Jonathon Hill { 04.28.10 at 9:44 pm }

Response from Senator Massey:

Hey Jonathon,

Thanks for the email.

First, a response to the article on the andersonteaparty.com site. Tom Davis didn’t withdraw the motion because he lacked support; he withdrew the motion because he’s getting a subcommittee hearing on the bill in the next couple weeks. If the bill gets killed in subcommittee, or if the chairmen don’t let out to the floor, there will likely be another motion to recall. Tom knew he would have support to recall. He just wanted to respect the process, which is probably what he should have done.

Now, for my position. I absolutely support transparency and more on-the-record votes. What most folks don’t realize is that we actually changed the Senate rules last year to require more roll call votes. The rules don’t go as far as I’d like, but they’re a whole lot better than what we had before. I like the statute, though.

Having said all that, I think a subcommittee hearing on this one is a good thing. My intent there, certainly, is not to kill it; but I do think we need to look at it. Sen. McConnell obviously doesn’t like the statute, BUT he has a good argument regarding the consitutionality of the statute. Article II, Section 12 – ” Each house shall choose its own officers, determine its rules of procedure, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same cause.” The argument is that we can’t set rules by statute because that means the Senate sets the House rules and the House sets the Senate rules. The constitution requires each house to sets its own rules.

Now I don’t know, ultimately, whether that is a good argument or not, but it does make sense on its face. For that reason, I think we need a hearing to evaluate the constitutionality. I like more transparency, but I’m not going to vote for something that is unconstitutional even if it does provide for more transparency.

Just let us follow the proper procedure. If they kill it without a proper hearing, the motion to recall will come back. If it dies because it’s unconstitutional, though, that may be another matter. We just don’t know yet . . . and that’s the whole purpose of the subcommittee hearing.

Shane Massey

Nance, McCants & Massey
P.O. Box 2881
Aiken, SC 29802
803-649-6200, ext. 30
fax: 803-649-5566

3 Jonathon Hill { 04.29.10 at 4:54 pm }

Response from Sen. Tom Davis:

Thanks for your passion on this issue. You obviously share my belief that a representative democracy cannot, by definition, properly function if the governed are not able to hold accountable those who govern on their behalf. And you are right to be frustrated that that H 3047 has not to date had much traction in the Senate — especially when an essentially identical bills in the Senate has 23 co-sponsors. The sad reality is that many legislators will sponsor a bill because they know they are popular with their constituents, and then will proceed to do everything they can to derail the bill behind the scenes. And that certainly is the case with S 11 (the companion bill to H 3047). That said, the senators you copied with the email below — Shane Martin, Mike Fair, Phil Shoopman and Lee Bright — are true believers when it comes to increasing transparency and accountability. They strongly supported me when I made the recall motion and, I am positive, would have voted to have it recalled. I made the decision to withdraw my motion after I received assurances from Senate leadership — from both Republican and Democratic leaders — that H 3047 would receive a fair subcommittee hearing next week and that, if it didn’t, we’d be right back on the Senate floor with another pending recall motion. In no way did I feel abandoned by my allies in this matter; they had my back 100 percent. In any event, it is time to move onward from here and focus on next week’s subcommittee meeting. I am glad to hear that you and other reformers will be there. Your presence makes a big difference!

Leave a Comment