Sunday, Aug. 30, 2009

‘Take care’ of Sanford problem, House GOP urged

Caucus takes no action, but sentiment against governor runs strong

MYRTLE BEACH — Gov. Mark Sanford had no defenders when South Carolina House Republicans discussed his fate Saturday at an annual retreat.

Angry lawmakers urged colleagues to consider impeachment or asking as a group for Sanford’s resignation. But House Speaker Bobby Harrell urged his 55 House colleagues to wait on official conclusions from a State Ethics Commission report before acting.

Though House Republicans took no official action Saturday, it was clear that most in the caucus want Sanford to go.

“Is there anybody in this room that feels the governor should not resign?” asked Rep. Harry Cato, the House speaker pro tem. “I don’t hear anybody defending him.”

Lawmakers said Sanford had become an obstacle since disappearing on a five-day trip to Argentina in June and later admitting an extramarital affair. Since then, questions have been raised about Sanford’s use of state planes and other resources.

Sanford said that he has done nothing that was not also done by past administrations and that he has used state planes less than former governors. Sanford has refused to resign.

But many House Republicans want to push the issue.

Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, said he believed Sanford could be impeached on two charges that met the constitutional requirement of serious misconduct: leaving his post to travel to Argentina and disgracing the office of governor. Delleney argued the Legislature should begin impeachment proceedings immediately.

“We determine what serious misconduct is,” Delleney said, noting the Constitution does not define the term. “We’re not dependent on courts. We’re not dependent on the Ethics Commission.

“It’s the Republicans that ought to take care of this problem,” Delleney said, noting that the party’s credibility is at stake.

Even those who generally have supported the governor favored his resignation.

“It’s almost unanimous for resignation,” Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, said of his constituents’ opinions. “At this point, I don’t see a rational man who’s thinking clearly and is capable of leading this state.”

Harrell, R-Charleston, urged patience because the House must begin the impeachment process and would have to decide what, if anything, with which to charge Sanford.

The State Ethics Commission said Friday it already has begun to look into Sanford’s use of state resources.

The Ethics Commission will determine if Sanford used the state airplane at his disposal for personal and political travel, which would violate ethics laws. The commission also is looking into whether Sanford’s failure to disclose 35 private plane trips violated state law. The commission will review Sanford’s failure to itemize reimbursements from his campaign because personal use of that money is prohibited.

A report could take months, but Harrell said he would ask the commission to move quickly.

Harrell has drawn criticism from state senators and others for waiting on the report before taking a stand on Sanford. Harrell said that the House must allow the deliberate gathering of facts, and that accusations that his decision was politically motivated by the 2010 governor’s race or other reasons were absurd.

“We will deal with this,” Harrell told the House GOP, “and we will deal with this as quickly as we can.”

One lawmaker, Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Oconee, said he had politics on his mind. Sanford, he said, had supported candidates attempting to oust lawmakers who disagreed with the governor. Sandifer said Sanford would only continue to criticize lawmakers.

“I would predict these attacks (by Sanford) will become more volatile and more vile as time moves along,” he said. “I cannot trust this person to stay in office.”

Others asked if the House could appoint a special counsel or begin its own investigation to prevent the legislative session beginning in January from being hijacked by impeachment.

Harrell said that was possible, but not until after the Ethics Commission report.

Reach O’Connor at (803) 771-8358.

The road to impeachment

The South Carolina Constitution says statewide elected officials can be impeached for serious misconduct or serious crimes in office. While House leaders say they want to wait on a State Ethics Commission report about Gov. Mark Sanford’s use of state airplanes and other resources, a handful of lawmakers are quietly working to get the impeachment process started sooner. While lawmakers do not return until January, leadership can call the Legislature back to Columbia. From there, two-thirds of both bodies could vote to allow impeachment proceedings to begin. Here is how it would work:

Step 1: The House Judiciary Constitutional Law subcommittee

This five-member panel would likely be the first to receive a bill attempting to impeach Sanford. The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, who has said he thinks Sanford’s five-day disappearance to Argentina without alerting staff or the lieutenant governor is grounds for impeachment. The panel also has two Democrats, Rep. James Smith of Richland County and Rep. Walt McLeod of Newberry County, who would have a difficult time politically voting against any impeachment resolution. Two Republicans on the subcommittee, Rep. James Harrison of Richland County and Rep. Garry Smith of Greenville County, have not chosen a side on impeachment. One wild card: The impeachment bill could be sent to another committee, possibly to kill the bill.

Odds of passage: Likely

Step 2: The full House Judiciary Committee

The panel has 14 Republicans and 10 Democrats, with at least one Republican already supporting impeachment. If Democrats vote together, just two more Republican votes would send the bill to the House floor. Many committee members think impeachment, if introduced, is likely to make it to the House floor.

Odds of passage: Likely

Step. 3: The full House

The House would act as grand jury, weighing the evidence against Sanford and deciding if he should be charged with the crimes. It takes two-thirds of the entire membership’s 83 votes to charge Sanford. House members and observers think that between 15 and 25 Republicans are likely to vote for impeachment, if given the choice. Democrats could bring an additional 51 votes to the cause. Though Democrats might want to leave Sanford in office to use as a political pinata in the 2010 gubernatorial race, many hail from districts angry with Sanford. Likewise, House Republicans worry that leaving Sanford in office could further stir an anti-incumbency electorate expected next year. But many Republicans and a number of Democrats are not yet convinced that Sanford has committed an impeachable act. A State Ethics Commission report could provide ammo — or cover — for an impeachment vote. Others may be influenced by 2010 politics because many believe Attorney General Henry McMaster, a gubernatorial candidate, would not like to see Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer accept a promotion to governor. House Speaker Bobby Harrell’s blessing or rejection of impeachment could decide whether Sanford is charged or not.

Odds of passage: Toss-up

Step 4: The Senate

The Senate would provide final judgment in the Sanford trial, where Sanford would face a hostile jury. Again, a two-thirds vote — 31 “yes” votes — of the body is required. Many of Sanford’s biggest political rivals reside in the Senate. In addition, a majority of Republican senators already have called for his resignation, and Democrats would again have a difficult time politically absolving Sanford. Many Democrats intensely dislike Sanford. Many senators and observers think the votes are there to convict Sanford and remove him from office based on what has been reported so far.

Odds: Likely

What’s next

Having found “sufficient facts to warrant an investigation,” the State Ethics Commission is looking into Gov. Mark Sanford’s travels and expenses. The investigation could last for months, although S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell is asking for a quick resolution.

What is it looking into?

• Misuse of state airplanes. State law bars any use of state planes other than for official business. Sanford, according to state documents, used a state plane to ferry family members across the state and to attend political functions — possible violations of state law.

• Using expensive airfares on foreign trips. State law requires the use of the most economical travel available.

• Failure to disclose private plane trips. The Associated Press has reported that Sanford accepted 35 rides on private planes that he did not disclose in his state ethics report — a possible violation of state law.

• Questionable reimbursements from his campaign account. The State reported earlier this month that Sanford had failed to explain $1,800 in campaign reimbursements. Under state law, it is illegal for a candidate to spend campaign money for personal use.

Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.