Put legislators on the record
Sunday, September 28, 2008

Charleston Post and Courier

"Trust us."

That's what the Legislature is saying, in effect, by keeping most of its votes off the record.

But the legislative record isn't spotless. Just look at the current difficulties in funding essential services, like public education and prisons, and compare it to the Legislature's Competitive Grants program, which pays out millions for balloon festivals and other fluff.

The public needs to know what its elected legislators are up to and should insist that legislators make it happen.

The bill in question would require votes in the House and Senate to be broadly recorded. A recent study by the S.C. Policy Council, a conservative think tank, found that both bodies do the vast majority of their business by voice vote.

In the Senate, only 1 percent of votes are recorded. In the House, it's 8 percent.

Who knows where they really stand?

Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington, wants votes to be recorded where they count — for example, on budgetary matters and conference committee reports. Bills would get a recorded vote on second reading, and, if amended, on third reading. Minor legislation, including resolutions, recognitions and congratulatory acts, would be exempt.

Her proposal would bring South Carolina in line with most other states, giving its residents the same opportunity to know where their elected legislators stand on the full range of public business.

Rep. Haley cites an instructive failure of public accountability last session, when representatives endorsed an increase in their retirement benefits by voice vote. Public criticism eventually forced a reconsideration of the measure, which ultimately was rejected.

Had legislators been required to put themselves on the record in the first place, the benefits hike almost certainly wouldn't have been brought up.

Many legislators quoted by reporter Yvonne Wenger in Thursday's Post and Courier gave at least qualified support for the measure. A few, however, were less than enthusiastic.

Perhaps the most surprising remarks came from House Speaker Bobby Harrell, who has generally been a proponent of accountability measures — for example, in public education and the state Department of Transportation. In a prepared statement, he chided Gov. Mark Sanford for joining the legislative advocates of the bill in a series of press conferences, suggesting he was "just pandering to voters and grabbing for headlines."

In his statement, Rep. Harrell, R-Charleston, cited the potential expense and wasted time in recording votes on minor resolutions.

But, as noted, resolutions would be exempt from recorded votes. And the expense would be fairly minimal. Using the estimate of $55 per vote from Speaker Harrell's office, Rep. Haley calculated a total cost of $39,000 for all applicable House votes last session.

She correctly observes, "We will save more than what we spend" by the use of recorded votes. Legislators will be reluctant to go on record in support of pork-barrel projects they have previously endorsed in voice votes.

Despite his misgivings, Speaker Harrell acknowledged that more roll call voting was "a good idea." So maybe he'll get on board.

In his comments, Gov. Sanford explained why recorded votes are important to public accountability: "Two things that are foundational to any democratic government are the ideas of standing up and being counted for your vote, and the idea of voters being able to find out who indeed voted for what.

"Requiring on-the-record voting for every bill that passes will inject some much-needed sunlight into what is too often a very murky process."

The state's voters can be expected to hear that message for legislative accountability loud and clear. And you can bet they won't look favorably on legislators who are willing to keep the public in the dark.