Tag: Hugh Leatherman

The Effectiveness of Political Endorsements

Political endorsements captured the headlines last week even though the benefit they provide a candidate is very questionable.

Gov. Nikki Haley was in the Pee Dee and on the Grand Strand to promote three SC Senate candidates. Maybe it’s more accurate to say she was in the area to campaign against incumbent legislators she doesn’t like.

Haley came to the local area to attack incumbent senators Luke Rankin (District 33) and Hugh Leatherman (District 31) and promote challengers in those primary contests, Scott Pyle and Richard Skipper, respectively.

Haley’s endorsements in those two races are probably the equivalent of whistling in the wind. After all, Haley endorsed Marco Rubio all the way to distant also ran in the SC presidential primary while Donald Trump was sweeping all of South Carolina’s delegates.

Haley’s third local endorsement, candidate Reese Boyd over Rep. Stephen Goldfinch for the open Senate District 34 seat, may help a little more because Boyd is the better candidate and Goldfinch, while an incumbent House member, is unpopular in some important precincts in District 34.

Haley’s attempt to defeat incumbent legislators who don’t vote the way she wishes is sadly reminiscent of FDR in the 1938 off year Congressional elections. FDR targeted and campaigned against eight southern Democratic incumbent senators and house members who did not support most of his New Deal programs.

Only one of the targeted eight was defeated in the primaries and the Democrats lost six Senate seats and 71 House seats to Republicans in the general election. FDR’s popularity with the voters didn’t translate to candidates he endorsed or otherwise supported.

Political endorsements mean even less in a county or city race where the candidates and endorsers are better known to voters. The endorsement by ‘so and so’ state legislator for ‘such and such’ local candidate means virtually nothing to the voters.

Continue Reading →

SC General Assembly and School Funding

The SC General Assembly is trying to make a constitutional crisis out of last year’s SC Supreme Court ruling on education funding.

SC House Speaker Jay Lucas and SC Senate President pro Tempore Hugh Leatherman filed a motion earlier this week with the SC Supreme Court requesting reconsideration of the Court’s November 2014 finding.

The finding stated the SC General Assembly was not providing enough funding for the poorer school districts in the state for even the ‘minimally adequate education’ called for by the state Constitution.

The main thrust of the motion was revealed in a press release by Speaker Lucas issued Monday:

“Arbitrary deadlines that seek to hijack the legislative process and meaningless approval from an unrealistic super-panel will not reform South Carolina’s education delivery system. Achieving actual improvement requires extensive study and input from those most familiar with the issues.

“The Court’s attempt to overstep its judicial authority further complicates the lawmaking process. More importantly, it negates the significant progress made by the House Education Task Force over the last ten months. Every child in every part of our state deserves access to a 21st century education. Because we must preserve the diligent work already completed by our task force, we think it is imperative that the Supreme Court vacate their most recent order and remove itself from the legislative process,” said Speaker Lucas.

Continue Reading →
"Public pensions must be more transparent, accountable." Curtis M. Loftis Jr.

Better Oversight, More Transparency Required

“The treasurer has a legitimate concern. He has the right, if he is putting his signature on there, to have staff to give him confidence that what he is doing is right for the people of the state.” Governor Nikki Haley

Better oversight and more transparency of investment decisions for the state’s $25 billion pension fund may result from a vote taken by the S.C. Budget and Control Board Thursday.

The board, chaired by Gov. Nikki Haley and including Treasurer Curtis Loftis, Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh Leatherman and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian White as members, unanimously (5-0) approved a motion by Loftis to “hire a counsel to determine the fiduciary and statutory responsibilities of all trustees, custodians and commission members” with regard to investment decisions and contracts of the pension fund.

Continue Reading →
State Farmers Market Purchase on Hold

13 Million Will Buy You A Toxic Waste Site

One of the state budget items to be discussed this week by the House/Senate conference committee is the proposed purchase of additional land at the current site of the state farmers market in Lexington.

The House put $1 (one dollar) in the budget for the purchase while the Senate was much more generous with $13 million. Quite a large range to discuss and there are many reasons why.

When the state moved the farmers market two years ago, sites in Lexington and Richland counties were considered. Sources in the General Assembly say the Richland site was preferred for a long time until a late drive with petitions and the like secured the market in Lexington.

What wasn’t known at the time, according to legislators we talked to, was that the Lexington site has considerable environmental issues. It was a toxic chemical waste dump for many years and there are EPA warning signs on the property to this day.

Continue Reading →

S.C. Election Filing Mess – Part II

Every time we look at the mess created during election filing time by candidates who did not comply with state law, something else jumps out to further complicate the upcoming S.C. Supreme Court decision on two lawsuits filed to challenge discrepancies in the filings.

Yesterday we reported on the absolute mess in Horry County that, under strict adherence to state law, would disqualify enough candidates and incumbents to leave two county council, one state house, one state senate, sheriff, coroner, clerk of court, auditor and treasurer with no qualified candidates from either party to appear on the ballot.

That could mean all those seats are determined by write-in campaigns in November.

But, the mess does not end there. It seems the state legislators who passed the law could not be bothered to follow its provisions either.

Continue Reading →