South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — All money paid to South Carolina lawmakers while they aren't in session has been stopped by the state Supreme Court as the justices sort through a lawsuit from one of their members, alleging legislators improperly gave themselves an $18,000-a-year raise.
The raise is what is called 'in-district compensation' — money set aside for legislative duties that has few limits on how it can be spent and requires no receipts or other documentation.
Lawmakers voted, in the budget set to start July 1, to increase it from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members.
Republican Sen. Wes Climer sued his colleagues, saying the raise violates the state constitution, which bans the legislature from increasing their per diem during their terms. House members would get 18 months of the extra money and senators would get more than three years of payments before facing reelection.
Lawyers for the House and Senate disagree. They said the money isn't a 'per diem' considered part of legislators' salaries, but a reimbursement for expenses, even though there are no reporting requirements.
They also said the money isn't an extra cost to taxpayers because it came out of funds already set aside to operate both chambers.
The compensation is usually paid monthly, but neither the $1,000 that has been paid for decades nor the $1,500 raise will land in lawmakers' direct deposits in July since the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday to suspend the budget item containing the money until it rules.
The justices set out a schedule with a deadline in early September for the final legal filings, meaning lawmakers won't get paid for at least two months.
If the justices rule the raise is legal, then lawmakers would get back pay for both the raise and their regular pay.
In South Carolina, the Supreme Court justices are elected by the Legislature.
Along with the in-district compensation, lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 annually, paid in a lump sum that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, mileage to drive to the state capital in Columbia and hotel rooms while in session.
Legislators are considered part-time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May, and outside of the in-district compensation, they don't receive any money when not in session.
The raise was proposed by Republican Sen. Shane Martin late in the budget process in a proviso, which is a one-year order on how to spend money. The monthly stipend hadn't changed in about 30 years, and Martin said the increase was needed to offset inflation. It is meant to pay for computers or other equipment, travel to events in their districts, or holding town halls.
More than 40 of the state's 170 General Assembly members have refused the increase. All are Republicans.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
28 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
North Dakota considers 2 proposed natural gas pipelines that would stretch across the state
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A state official briefed regulators Thursday on two separate underground pipelines that companies plan to build across hundreds of miles of North Dakota, bringing natural gas from the oil fields in the west to mostly industrial users in the more populated east. Both pipelines — one by Intensity Infrastructure Partners and Rainbow Energy Center, the other by WBI Energy — would span about 350 miles (563 kilometers) roughly from the Watford City to Fargo areas. Segments would come into service in 2029 and 2030. The companies didn't disclose the projects' costs. The presentation to a state industrial panel of elected officials was among the first steps in a process for the state to sign on with a 10-year, $50 million-per-year line of credit. That is essentially a backstop so projects can proceed with the intent that the state back out one day when other users join. Companies won't build a pipeline without firm commitments from users. North Dakota has a critical need for more natural gas transportation as oil wells age and produce more natural gas relative to oil, North Dakota Pipeline Authority Director Justin Kringstad said. Republican Gov. Kelly Armstrong welcomed the projects for helping oil production, which is a huge driver of the state budget. 'If you can't move your gas and you have a finite amount of capital to invest in drilling, you're going to drill where you can market your gas, or you're going to do it in a different manner,' the governor said. 'So being able to move gas out of the Bakken (oil region) will help produce more oil.' North Dakota is producing a near-record 3.5 billion cubic feet (99.1 million cubic liters) per day of natural gas. The state has long wanted such pipelines, but efforts never succeeded in the past because of developments that hurt demand, such as oil price declines and the COVID-19 pandemic, Kringstad said. 'Today we're seeing a much stronger pull on the demand side than we've ever seen in these efforts,' Kringstad said. 'We've always seen the push and the need in the west, but today the appetite across the state for natural gas and for energy is at the highest that I've ever seen.' The gas will mostly be used for industrial purposes but also growing residential needs, he said. The pipelines could carry as much as 1 million dekatherms per day, a volume he said would be 'extremely meaningful in addressing the challenges that North Dakota is facing.' Capturing and moving the gas out of the oil field has been an issue over the years as officials and industry have sought to boost infrastructure and reduce flaring, or the burning of natural gas into the air. Although the state captured about 96% of the gas in April, critics have long raised environmental and health concerns about flaring. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. The Trump administration has pushed for increased domestic energy production, largely from fossil fuel sources. Doug Burgum, a former North Dakota governor and now the U.S. Interior secretary, has long called for raising energy extraction efforts. Other pipeline projects in North Dakota have drawn enormous pushback in recent years, including huge protests of the Dakota Access oil pipeline and landowner resistance around the Midwest to Summit Carbon Solutions' proposed carbon dioxide network. Armstrong said some degree of pushback is likely, 'but the reality is pipelines are the easiest way to move things.' It's unclear whether eminent domain, or the taking of private property with just compensation, will come into play for the pipelines. A Rainbow Enegry Center leader said Intensity Infrastructure Partners has never utilized eminent domain in more than 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) of pipeline it has built in North Dakota. A WBI Energy spokesperson said he couldn't answer. Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions has faced intense opposition over eminent domain for its proposed five-state carbon dioxide pipeline. Some landowners have opposed eminent domain as the company seeks to build the pipeline, and South Dakota's governor earlier this year signed a ban on eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Toronto Star
34 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Senators diverge sharply on damage done by Iran strikes after classified briefing
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators emerged from a classified briefing Thursday with sharply diverging assessments of President Donald Trump's bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, with Republicans calling the mission a clear success and Democrats expressing deep skepticism. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came to Capitol Hill to give the classified briefings, originally scheduled for Tuesday.
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Senate adopts Carney's fast-tracked major projects bill — well before Canada Day deadline
OTTAWA — The Senate adopted Prime Minister Mark Carney's internal trade and major projects bill without amendments on Thursday, making it the first government bill to pass through all stages during the spring sitting of Parliament and receive royal assent. That means that Carney will make good on his election campaign promise to eliminate all federal barriers to interprovincial trade by Canada Day to have 'one Canadian economy.' Bill C-5 has two parts. The Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada, which had support across party lines in the House of Commons, aims to eliminate internal trade and labour mobility barriers in Canada. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The Building Canada Act, which would give cabinet sweeping powers to fast-track natural resource and infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest, has raised considerably more concerns from Indigenous peoples and environmental groups. To speed up the legislative process, the Senate conducted a 'pre-study' of C-5 last week as the bill was being studied in a House of Commons committee. It was adopted at third reading in the House by a majority of MPs last Friday. Amendments were made to the bill by opposition parties in a bid for more transparency and to exempt federal laws such as the Indian Act from being circumvented to approve major projects. Still, some Indigenous groups claimed their treaty rights might not be respected. Mi'kmaq Senator Paul Prosper attempted to stall the rapid adoption of C-5 by moving an amendment that the bill include the principle of 'free, prior and informed consent' from First Nations, Inuit or Métis peoples before nation-building projects can move ahead. 'I am confident that, by investing a few more months into this bill and ensuring that rights holders had an opportunity to share their thoughts and offer renditions, we would have seen this bill pass with overwhelming support. But I suppose now we will never know.' Quebec Senator Pierre Dalphond argued that the government had to take 'bold action' quickly with C-5 to reinforce Canada's economy and create jobs, given the current trade war caused by U.S. President Donald Trump and the layoffs occurring as a result. 'I trust the courts to stand firm and intervene if the government falls short of its obligations to our Indigenous peoples,' said Dalphond, a former court of appeal judge. Prosper's amendment was defeated, as were all the other proposed amendments in the Senate. Having the upper chamber propose amendments to C-5 would have forced MPs to return to the House to vote on them before the bill could receive royal assent, expected Friday. Many senators complained about the rushed process to adopt C-5, which did not leave them with enough time to properly review the legislation. 'I wish that we had not rushed this bill,' said Paula Simons, a senator from Alberta, in a speech. 'I wish the Senate had been allowed to provide true sober second thought, to assure Canadians that this was the best possible legislation.' Her Quebec colleague, Julie Miville-Dechêne, said, either way, the Senate was 'stuck.' 'When we propose improvements to a bill, we're told we don't have the legitimacy to do so because we are unelected. When a bill is quickly passed, as is, we're told that this demonstrates our complete uselessness,' she lamented. A new Angus Reid Institute poll shows that C-5 has broad support among Canadians, although there are some concerns about how major projects will be approved. 'This is not a carte blanche. When asked about specific elements of the bill… there is some pushback, particularly around the trade-off of shortened environmental assessments in the name of speeding up approval,' said Angus Reid president Shachi Kurl. The data show that nearly three-quarters of Canadians (74 per cent) said they support fast-tracking projects. Half (49 per cent) of respondents said they oppose bypassing environmental reviews, and 30 per cent are opposed to overriding provincial oversight. Kurl said there might be potential regional downfalls in condensing environmental reviews. 'Quebecers and British Columbians in particular are concerned about the notion of a so-called 'national override' (to) see projects to the finish line,' she said. A majority of Canadians (59 per cent) believe major projects should require consultation from Indigenous communities, but they should not be offered a full veto to block them. 'Ultimately, it will come down to which projects are proposed, where, and whether enough of a political and social coalition can be built to see them through,' said Kurl. Angus Reid conducted the online survey from June 20-23 among a randomized sample of 1,619 Canadians. The margin of error is more or less two points, 19 times out of 20. National Post calevesque@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
