South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal
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.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
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.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court poised to rule in challenge to Texas age-check for online porn
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday in a challenge on free speech grounds to a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of users in a case testing the legality of state efforts to keep minors from viewing such material online. A trade group representing adult entertainment performers and companies appealed a lower court's decision allowing the Republican-led state's age-verification mandate, finding that it likely did not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment safeguard against government abridgment of speech. The Texas measure is one of 24 similar ones enacted around the United States, primarily in Republican-governed states, with some set to take effect in the months ahead, according to the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the law. The law requires websites whose content is more than a third "sexual material harmful to minors" to have all users submit personally identifying information verifying they are at least age 18 to gain access. The case tested the limits of state powers to protect minors from explicit materials deemed by policymakers to be harmful to them with measures that burden the access of adults to constitutionally protected expression. Supreme Court precedents have protected access by adults to non-obscene sexual content on First Amendment grounds, including a 2004 ruling that blocked a federal law similar to the Texas measure. If the 2004 precedent prevents Texas from enforcing its law, then it should be overruled, the state argued, noting how the digital landscape has changed dramatically in the two decades since. The coalition, a trade association of adult content performers, producers and distributors, as well as companies that run pornographic websites including and argued that online age verification unlawfully stifles the free speech rights of adults and exposes them to increasing risks of identity theft, extortion and data breaches. Some sites like Pornhub blocked access entirely in states with age-verification laws. Steps such as content-filtering software or on-device age verification would better protect minors while respecting the rights of adults, according to the challengers. During Jan. 15 arguments in the case, the justices voiced worries about the pervasiveness of pornography online and the ease with which minors are able to access it. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of school-age children, noted that minors can get online porn through cellphones, tablets, gaming systems and computers, and noted that there has been an "explosion of addiction to online porn." But some of the justices also expressed concern over the burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material, debating whether the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should have applied a stricter form of judicial review to the Texas law than the one it actually used that gave deference to legislators. U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra issued a preliminary injunction in 2023, blocking the law. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their First Amendment challenge to the age-verification requirement, lifting Ezra's injunction on that provision. The 5th Circuit upheld Ezra's injunction against another provision requiring websites to display "health warnings" about viewing pornography. The Supreme Court last year declined to halt enforcement of the law while the case proceeded.
Washington Post
35 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Friday briefing: Supreme Court rulings; thimerosal; Ali Khamenei; Diddy trial; another heat wave; fireball video; and more
The Supreme Court is set to decide six remaining cases this morning. The U.S. DOGE Service has sent staff into ATF to slash gun regulations. Trump shook Democrats' hold on non-White voters in 2024, a new report found. It's still not clear what the U.S. strikes on Iran achieved. Prosecutors made their closing arguments in the trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Even more extreme heat is coming to ruin your weekend. A fireball appeared to explode over the southeastern U.S. yesterday. And now … what to read this weekend: One of these 15 gripping new paperbacks. Want to catch up quickly with 'The 7' every morning? Download The Post's app and turn on alert notifications for The 7 or sign up for the newsletter.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legal clarity sought from Belfast High Court on Supreme Court gender ruling
Guidance will be sought from the High Court in Belfast over the effect a landmark Supreme Court ruling on gender will have in Northern Ireland. The Equality Commission in Northern Ireland has said that there is 'significant' legal uncertainty in the wake of the ruling, including how it interacts with existing equality law and with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission Geraldine McGahey said they would consult with other parties on whether they wish to join the legal proceedings on the 'nuanced and complicated' issue. Ms McGahey said through referring the issue to the courts, they hoped to avoid 'the toxicity which has sometimes characterised the debate'. The Supreme Court in London declared in April that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. The ruling has been interpreted to mean that transgender women can be excluded from women-only spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. However, the Equality Act 2010 does not cover Northern Ireland. The Equality Commission was to prepare guidance on the ruling's potential implications on Stormont departments. In a legal paper published by the Equality Commission on Friday, it said it would request legal clarity from the High Court. The Commission said that once the High Court decides on the matter, and subject to any appeals, the Commission will then produce its draft guidance, which will be subject to further consultation. Ms McGahey said: 'After much consideration and analysis, the Commission has concluded that the situation in Northern Ireland, in respect of this matter, is much more nuanced and complicated, and there is significant uncertainty due to our unique legal landscape. 'We have no interest in merely speculating as to how a court might determine these issues in the future. We will not answer these legal uncertainties by weighing the arguments 'for' and 'against'. 'It is important that the Commission shows leadership as people and their lives are at the heart of this issue. 'To achieve greater long-term certainty and clarity for all involved, the Commission will be seeking a declaration from the courts to address several questions regarding the significant legal uncertainties. 'Our equality laws do not sit in isolation; they interact with other laws and regulations for which the Commission does not have a remit. 'We believe other bodies and organisations will also require clarification on the legal position in relation to their own areas of work and may join the Commission in its legal proceedings. 'The Commission will issue Pre-Action Protocol letters to government departments and other public bodies with legal responsibilities potentially affected by the judgment and to other interested parties. 'The Commission will also commence a wider consultation process for all interested stakeholders.' She said the Commission wants to give everyone the opportunity to engage and will welcome input from all stakeholders. 'We fully recognise the challenges faced by employers and service providers as they try to navigate these uncertainties,' she said. 'As this is an evolving area of law, we will keep our interim information for employers and service providers under review and offer advice on a case-by-case basis where the law is clear. 'Ultimately, maximising legal certainty and transparency is at the heart of our strategy. 'We aim to create a robust framework for offering guidance, rather than being subject to numerous legal uncertainties that may be contested in the courts over the coming years at potentially great cost to the public purse. 'By adopting this approach, we hope to avoid the toxicity which has sometimes characterised the debate around how to balance the rights of biological women and transgender women by creating a space for debate and adjudication by the courts. 'We believe our approach will be in the best interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.'
