S.C. senator attempt to stop state lawmaker pay increase
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WSPA) – A legal battle is underway over state lawmakers giving themselves more money. One senator said the way it was done is unconstitutional, but the lawmaker who pushed for the increase disagrees.In the state's new budget, lawmakers voted to more than double their in-district compensation, increasing it from around $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month.
The move was led by Republican Senator Matt Leber (R – Charleston), who said it's not a pay raise but a reimbursement to help public servants cover travel and district costs.
Leber sponsored a bill that had the same language and said he will try to pass the bill in January.
He said lawmakers have not gotten a raise in in-district expense since 1994, and they need to adjust for inflation. Therefore, he said it's not a salary raise.
'If we don't make this at least affordable for the everyday person to run for office, then we're not going to get the everyday person to run for office,' Leber said. 'It's just going to be elites up there running everything, and they love this argument. '
Not everyone agrees on the decision.
'$1,000 a month arrives in legislators bank accounts via direct deposit. There are no receipts required to submit for reimbursement. It's just $1,000 deposit into the account. Legislators are free to expend those funds however they deem appropriate,' said Senator Wes Climer (R – York).
The increase was passed as an amendment to the budget and Climer said it wasn't the right way to do it.
'Regardless of how you feel about a legislative pay raise, this is the wrong way to do it. Violate the principle that the legislature cannot take the people's money and appropriate it to themselves in real time,' Climer added.'The proviso method is there for us to use more difficult for the current crop of legislators to continue to work. I felt like it was right to go for it now. '
Climer is now suing the State Treasurer's Office, and said the South Carolina Constitution bans lawmakers from increasing their own compensation before an election.
He and retired Senator, Dick Harpootlian, have asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to step in, arguing the vote violates the state constitution.
'We are standing here and have filed the suit in order to protect or to defend the constitutional safeguards against the general assembly,' Climer added.
Governor Henry McMaster chimed in on the issue last week.
'They are the ones that are trying to pay those expenses. In good faith, if they use that money for the in-district expenses as they're supposed to, then if that amount is legitimate, then that's a proper law,' McMaster said.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued a scheduling order requiring the state to respond to the injunction request by next Monday.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Double Standard On LA's Protests Couldn't Be More Glaring
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is warning those protesting against his unprecedented immigration crackdown in Los Angeles against targeting police officers and thousands of National Guard troops he's deployed there, promising to exact retribution on anyone who commits violence against them. 'Nobody's going to spit on our police officers. Nobody's going to spit on our military,' Trump told reporters on Monday, before posting on his social media website: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' But Trump felt differently about violence against law enforcement when he issued blanket pardons earlier this year for hundreds of people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in an effort to keep him in office after his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. His pardons included those convicted of assaulting or interfering with police officers, roughly 1,000 nonviolent offenders and around 200 people accused of assaulting police. A number of those pardoned have reportedly since been rearrested for other alleged crimes. 'These are the hostages. Approximately 1,500 were pardoned. Full pardon,' Trump said after issuing the pardons on his first day in office. About 140 police officers were injured in the attack on the Capitol, something that Trump has called a 'beautiful day' despite being impeached by the U.S. House for inciting an insurrection by spreading lies about election fraud. 'Their hypocrisy just smacks you in the face,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who investigated the Capitol attack as a former member of the House, told HuffPost in response to Trump's response to LA's unrest. 'Violence is never appropriate. It wasn't appropriate on Jan. 6 and it's not appropriate in LA or anywhere else. We need to be consistent about that.' Trump quickly deployed thousands of troops to California over the weekend — including 700 U.S. Marines — despite no request from the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, who has warned the president's actions will further inflame the unrest. The protests initially began after Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents executed raids at a Home Depot store in Los Angeles at the direction of the White House. As president on Jan. 6, 2021, however, Trump issued no order or formal request for National Guard troops to aid beleaguered U.S. Capitol police who were overrun by hundreds of his supporters. 'On Jan. 6, both the Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress were begging Donald Trump to make a statement, to call off the MAGA mob that invaded the Capitol,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told HuffPost. 'People were begging him to call out the National Guard, and he sat there and did nothing, and now he's acting in a situation where the officials in charge are telling him that federalizing the National Guard and sending in the Marines will only exacerbate a situation which is under control.' Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House speaker at the time, also slammed Trump for federalizing the National Guard and sending troops to Los Angeles, something he refused to do when Congress was under attack. 'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' Pelosi told reporters on Tuesday. 'And yet, in a contra-constitutional way, he has sent the National Guard into California. Something is very wrong with this picture.' While Democrats have slammed Trump's response to the protests, Republicans are broadly welcoming the federal intervention in California — even those who have long espoused the importance of state's rights and the ability of local governments to enforce their laws. In 2024, for example, a group of 24 conservative House Republicans warned then-President Joe Biden not to federalize the Texas National Guard as some Texas Democratic lawmakers had been urging him to do, saying it would be an 'encroachment on Texas' constitutionally protected sovereignty.' Asked Tuesday if Trump is being inconsistent by sending troops to Los Angeles after pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) dodged the question entirely. 'The issue that's in front of us is the chaos in LA. The political leadership there wasn't up to the task,' he said at his weekly press conference. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has disagreed publicly with Trump's pardons of Jan. 6 rioters, said Democrats aren't being consistent on the issue by not sufficiently condemning violence in Los Angeles. 'I think Democrats who feel like the president is wrong to bring out force would be on firmer ground if they denounce the actions of violence in Los Angeles, Kenosha, and Portland,' he said, without specifying which Democrats have refused to speak out. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Libertarian-leaning voice in the Senate, suggested Trump was within his rights to federalize the National Guard and send troops into California without approval from the state's governor. 'Democrats have failed to have law and order,' Paul said. 'I've always preferred local law enforcement to federal but this is a time in which it looks as though the state government is resisting enforcing federal law.' It's not clear what federal law the senator is referring to. Newsom has also condemned violent protesters and urged the demonstrations to remain peaceful. 'The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles — not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,' Newsom said Sunday. 'Don't give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully,' he added. Arthur Delaney contributed reporting.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election
Members of Georgia's State Election Board sit during a Sept. 23 meeting at the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder (file photo) The Georgia Supreme Court has permanently blocked four rules the State Election Board approved last fall, concluding Tuesday that members of the board exceeded their authority in attempting to implement rules that went beyond the scope of Georgia's election laws. A total of seven rules were approved by the Republican-led board ahead of the 2024 general election, with supporters claiming that the changes were necessary to ensure accuracy and restore public confidence in Georgia's election integrity. If enacted, the rules would have ordered poll workers to hand count all ballots cast on election day, made it easier for local election officials to delay certifying election results and required family members and caregivers to present a photo ID when dropping off absentee ballots on behalf of another voter, among other changes. Election officials and voting rights groups opposed the rules, arguing that last-minute changes could sow confusion and doubt into the election process, and that implementing the new rules would violate Georgia's election laws. Last October, the Georgia Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed an emergency motion urging the state Supreme Court to reinstate the rules ahead of the general election, but the court declined to expedite their appeal. In a 96-page opinion, Chief Justice Nels Peterson upheld most of the Fulton County Superior Court's ruling, declaring that the State Election Board 'can pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict' existing Georgia law. The October ruling from Judge Thomas A. Cox Jr. argued that the seven rules were 'illegal, unconstitutional and void,' and that the State Election Board had exceeded its authority by passing them. However, in a slight reversal of the lower court ruling, the state Supreme Court allowed a rule mandating video surveillance of ballot drop boxes to take effect, finding that the rule was consistent with current election laws. Two other rules that would have expanded mandatory poll-watching areas and required election workers to publicly post daily totals of early and absentee voters were sent back to the Fulton County Superior Court for further consideration. The State Election Board is tasked with writing rules to ensure that elections run smoothly and hearing complaints about alleged violations. The three most conservative members of the Republican-led board — Janice Johnston, former state Sen. Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — made national headlines last fall after approving seven election rules in spite of Attorney General Chris Carr's warnings that the changes likely would not stand up in court. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump also praised King, Jeffares and Johnston during a campaign rally in Atlanta for supporting changes to election certification rules, calling them 'pit bulls' for 'victory.' State Election Board Chairman John Fervier did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. The ACLU of Georgia, which helped represent the plaintiffs, applauded Tuesday's ruling. 'This is a resounding affirmation of voters' rights,' said Theresa Lee, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project. 'The court recognized what we've argued all along — that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today's decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.' Eternal Vigilance Action, a conservative election advocacy organization that sued the State Election Board over the rule changes, also celebrated the ruling. 'This ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints,' Eternal Vigilance Action founder and former Republican state Rep. Scot Turner said in a statement. As new election laws passed in 2024 begin to take effect, including a ban on the use of QR codes to tabulate ballots, the board will likely continue to draft rules to guide local election officials tasked with implementing the changes. However, this year the board is workshopping changes to the rulemaking process in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the chaos that defined the 2024 election cycle. During a May meeting, state election board members discussed the possibility of forming a rules committee with election directors, legislators, Georgia residents, and election law attorneys. Rules would be vetted by the committee before being presented to the full board. Senior reporter Stanley Dunlap contributed to this report. s25a0362 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kansas commission nominates two judges, private attorney for vacancy on Supreme Court
A nonpartisan nominating committee recommended Gov. Laura Kelly choose from among three nominees to fill a vacancy on the Kansas Supreme Court. Justice Evelyn Wilson is retiring July 4. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — A state judicial nominating commission unanimously recommended Tuesday that Gov. Laura Kelly choose from among two eastern Kansas district court judges and a soft-spoken attorney in private practice to fill an impending vacancy on the Kansas Supreme Court. The nonpartisan commission completed two days of interviews with 15 applicants before several rounds of voting narrowed the list to Douglas County District Court Judge Amy Hanley, Johnson County District Court Judge Christopher Jayaram and Leawood attorney Larkin Walsh. It would be the Democratic governor's fourth appointment to state's seven-justice Supreme Court. Justice Evelyn Wilson, who was diagnosed with the progressive neurodegenerative condition known as Lou Gehrig's disease, plans to retire July 4. She was appointed by Kelly in 2019, but took the oath in 2020. 'We had very good candidates, and that's important,' said Gloria Flentje, chairperson of the merit-selection commission. 'I hope that every time in the future it will be a hard decision because there are good candidates who want to be on the Kansas Supreme Court.' Hanley, who was appointed to the district court in 2016 by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, was among top vote-getters in each of the rounds conducted by the commission. Before joining the bench, she argued 20 times before the state Supreme Court or Kansas Court of Appeals. She was a a special assistant U.S. attorney in Kansas and an assistant attorney general for Kansas. She earned a law degree at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. 'I believe litigation experience is crucial to this position,' said Hanley, of Lawrence. 'I believe strongly in precedent.' She said one of the biggest challenges before the state Supreme Court was to respond to the tarnished public image of courts and judges in general. 'Public perception is something I believe is best addressed through education,' she said. Walsh, senior counsel at Stueve Siegel Hanson and a 2004 graduate of the University of Kansas law school, clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Carlos Murguia and was a research attorney for state Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier. Walsh's legal practice centered on civil cases in state and federal courts. More recently, she worked on plaintiffs' rights in labor and employment cases. Retired Kansas Court of Appeals Judge Steve Leben described Walsh in a reference letter as someone with 'intellectual humility.' 'I found that to be so moving,' Walsh said. 'It really brings a tear to my eye that someone would describe me that way. I am not a self-promoter. This is not my scene, but I do think a critical attribute of being a judge is to maintain that sense that you don't have all the answers.' The Leawood resident said the obligation of a state justice would be to maintain fidelity to the law, conduct careful reviews of facts and examine issues in the way parties framed them. 'Ego doesn't play a huge role in that,' said Walsh, who suggested the same skill was important in forming consensus among justices. 'Being the loudest or being the most inflexible or being the most aggressive is never the most effective.' Jayaram, who was appointed a district court judge in Johnson County by Kelly in 2021, said his 20-year legal career before that point focused on business litigation and health care matters. He was an attorney at Horn Aylward & Bandy and earned a law degree at Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. He said the text of the Kansas Constitution ought to be reviewed from a pragmatic standpoint without losing connection to actual words contained in the document. 'I don't think that you should overlook original words that are there,' said Jayaram, of Lenexa. He was questioned by the commission about how judges or justices ought to to handle personal political views when deciding cases. 'My job as a district court judge is really to not pay attention to what's popular and not popular,' Jayaram said. 'I'm not a political animal.' The issue holds relevance given some district court judges in Kansas — not Johnson County — were elected by popular vote rather than appointed by a governor. In addition, the August 2026 ballot in Kansas will include a proposed amendment to the constitution requiring election of Supreme Court justices. On the commission's fifth ballot, Jayaram edged out on a vote of 5-4 Robert Wonnell, who also served as a judge in the Johnson County District Court. The commission conducted the one-on-one runoff to determine the third finalist after Jayaram and Wonnel tied on the fourth ballot.
