Can SC lawmaker be a plaintiff in lawsuit to stop General Assembly pay raise?
As the state Supreme Court weighs whether to strike down a lawmaker pay raise, it’s also mulling whether a lawmaker has standing to sue the General Assembly over a law it passed.
State Sen. Wes Climer, R-York, who is also running to succeed U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman in the 5th Congressional District, sued to stop a $1,500-a-month increase for in-district compensation from taking effect when the budget year began. All in-district compensation is now on hold as the Supreme Court considers the case.
Climer’s presence as a plaintiff in the case gave justices on the state’s highest court some pause.
“It seems like he’s, in essence, because the House and the Senate have intervened without objection, that he’s suing himself,” said Supreme Court Justice Letitia Verdin. “Are we opening the door to allow a legislator who’s on the losing end of the vote to now start bringing lawsuits in front of this court against their own body?”
Phillip Barber, one of the attorneys representing Climer in the case, argued the state senator’s challenge is on constitutional grounds.
“Here you have a member of the legislative body bringing a constitutional challenge to a statute, and no authority has been cited from any jurisdiction, not just this state or any state, any state or federal jurisdiction, ever to suggest that a member of a state legislature lacks the standing that any other citizen would have to challenge the constitutionality of a statute,” Barber said.
Barber also contended, however, that Climer’s role as a plaintiff isn’t completely necessary. The state senator is joined by another plaintiff, Carol Herring, a retired educator who lives in York County.
While the issue of Climer’s standing is important to the court, Barber said the issue does not apply to Herring.
“(Climer’s) not necessary because there is a petitioner who’s not a member of the legislature,” Barber said.
The issue of whether Climer has standing was brought up by lawyers for the House and Senate in the case defending the lawmaker pay raise.
Lawyers for the Senate pointed out Climer voted against the final budget, which included the pay raise. Climer also spoke out against the pay raise before the final vote in the state Senate.
“This Court has held that a “disgruntled” member of an official governmental body does not have standing to sue the body to invalidate a decision the member opposed,” Senate lawyers wrote.
If the court rules Climer has standing, it could lead to more lawmakers who are unhappy with legislation passed by the General Assembly, which has a Republican supermajority, to then sue.
“We view it as very problematic that a member of the General Assembly can challenge the conduct and actions taken by the body by filing actions in this court or any other court of this state,” Chief Justice John Kittredge said.
