Medical marijuana, election changes in the clear as SC lawmakers race to hit key deadline
Lawmakers inside the South Carolina State House this week face a key legislative deadline in a race to get their bills passed out of their own chamber.
This week is “crossover week” in the South Carolina General Assembly, when many lawmakers hurry — if they haven’t done so already — to pass a flurry of bills before the week ends that if not met likely spells doom for their proposal. Their bills could still pass this year, but they’d need significant bipartisan support.
Dozens of bills — from medical marijuana to a proposal that would split up the state’s health and environmental agency, along with legislation aimed at reining in the federal government and changing how voters cast their ballots — have already cleared the deadline. And yes, the state’s nearly $14 billion spending plan has also cleared this crucial calendar hurdle.
But many bills, dozens and dozens of measures, have not, giving them less of a chance at becoming law in 2022.
Some of them are coming to a head starting Tuesday.
“The whole entire week preceding (crossover) is a cluster because a lot of things get jammed down the throats of people who are trying to make sure that South Carolina is a better place,” said House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, D-Richland. “And almost all of those ain’t good. It is the worst thing we ever did was shorten session because it doesn’t allow for robust debate before crossover comes.”
What will SC House, Senate tackle by crossover?
The South Carolina General Assembly meets for about five months of the year, from early January to the second week in May. And, in the past three months, the House has passed two election-related proposals that would, in part, add two weeks of early voting and a tax cut that would impact more than 1.4 million filers.
The House also voted back in March to pass the $13.9 billion budget that includes pay raises for some teachers and state employees. In the last week, they also voted to pass legislation that would make anyone selling food items containing alcohol — for example, a Popsicle or ice cream — subject to the same state limitations as alcoholic beverages.
That’s not all.
This week, on top of a handful of tax-related legislation, the House is slated to debate one of the more controversial bills on its agenda that would ban transgender students from playing girls’ and women’s sports in South Carolina public high schools and colleges.
The House Rules Committee agreed last week to give the legislation, criticized by LGBTQ groups and most Democrats, a special order slot, setting it up as the No. 1 priority when the House returns Tuesday. The bill failed twice at the committee level in the House last year.
What is unclear is whether the chamber will get to a proposal aiming to ban the teaching of tenants of critical race theory in schools, what many educators in the state say they worry could have a chilling effect on how teachers approach difficult topics, such as the Holocaust and slavery.
The “crossover deadline” won’t preclude a bill from passing, said House Majority Leader Gary Simrill, R-York. As a general rule, Wednesday is key for lawmakers who want to see their legislation advance to the other side of the State House.
This year in the Senate, the chamber prioritized a bill that would legalize certain forms of marijuana for people with specific illnesses and symptoms. Senators also advanced their own version of a tax cut with a rebate attached, and cleared legislation to split up the state agency responsible for South Carolina’s COVID-19 response.
In the last week, the Senate passed a controversial proposal that would spend tax dollars to allow some poorer or disabled students attend a private school or public school outside of their district.
Again, that’s not all.
Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, said Monday senators have a “good number” of Senate bills, about 10 to 12, they want to clear before the week’s end.
“It can be hectic, but I’m hoping we have some things in a manageable state so that we can not get bogged down on any one contentious piece of legislation,” Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, said of the week. “If there’s something really big that ... (there’s) consensus on, ‘crossover’ should not be an impediment.”
The Senate was last week rumored to try and debate its own bill aimed at banning transgender student athletes from competing in girls’ and women’ sports. Massey said the Senate will “wait to see what the House does.”
Some senators have their eyes on at least one proposal that hasn’t yet received a vote in the upper chamber.
Recent hurricanes and other big storms have cost Duke Energy more than $200 million, and legislators are touting a plan they say will help the power company and Duke customers as potential rate increases loom.
A bill before the Senate would authorize Duke to issue a type of low interest bond that would raise money to pay back the company the more than $200 million, while also minimizing rate hikes, supporters say.
The financial mechanism now under consideration allows bonds to be issued at 2 %to 3% to raise the money for Duke to recover its storm costs. Under a traditional rate case, the interest rate would be closer to 6%, according to the S.C. Office of Regulatory Staff.
Duke and senators who support the legislation say the proposed low interest bond method, known as securitization, could mean eastern South Carolina customers would only pay a 3% increase in utility rates if Duke raises rates, according to the power company. Those customers would pay more than double that amount under the traditional way utilities seek reimbursement for costs in South Carolina, Duke has said..
“It’s a far lower cost to the ratepayers for those expenses that have already been borne,’’ Senate Judiciary Chairman Luke Rankin, R-Horry, said after his committee approved the bill last week and sent it to the upper chamber for consideration.
Some clean energy advocates say the bill doesn’t go far enough. They say the bill should also make it possible for Duke to use the financing method to pay for shutting down coal-fired power plants, which is expected in coming years across North Carolina. That could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.
Ratepayers in both Carolinas would likely pay for the coal shutdowns in North Carolina.
Staff Writer Sammy Fretwell and the Associated Press contributed to this story.
This story was originally published April 5, 2022 at 5:00 AM.
