News
Stimulus battle might end by weekend
Thursday, Jun 4, 2009
Toal: Governor had his chance to persuade legislators — and couldn't
By RICK BRUNDRETT and JOHN O'CONNOR
South Carolina's highest court said three months of debate over $700 million in federal stimulus money could be settled by Friday.
After more than two and half hours of arguments before the S.C. Supreme Court over who controls the money, Chief Justice Jean Toal announced the court plans to rule in the "next day or two" whether the Legislature can force Gov. Mark Sanford to accept the money.
The court by law has no deadline to rule, though the state faces a July 1 federal deadline to apply for the money. The dispute has roiled since Sanford refused to accept the money without lawmakers paying off an equal amount of debt. In response, lawmakers approved a budget ordering the governor to accept the money and overrode his vetoes, sparking three lawsuits.
The court heard two suits Wednesday, one brought by two Midlands students and another by the S.C. Association of School Administrators. Sanford's suit remains in federal court awaiting a state court ruling.
In the standing-room-only hearing, several of the justices, including Toal, expressed doubts about — though they didn't specifically reject — Sanford's position that the federal law gives him control over the money.
"Doesn't it boil down to a big policy disagreement between the governor and the Legislature?" Toal asked Sanford attorney Adam Charnes of Winston-Salem, N.C.
Sanford had his chance during the legislative process to exert his influence and lost the argument, Toal said.
Said Justice Donald Beatty, "Quite frankly, I find most of (Sanford's claims under the U.S. Constitution) not applicable to this situation."
When Charnes contended in another part of the questioning that the state constitution gives Sanford discretion in the application process, Beatty replied, "It doesn't mean he's king."
Charnes said the state constitution gives the governor "supreme executive authority" to decide whether to apply for the federal money. Sanford disagrees with the stimulus plan, Charnes said, and should not be required to sign paperwork that justifies the federal money.
"If he does not believe it's true, the General Assembly can't tell him to lie to the federal government," Charnes said. Otherwise, he said, "The governor is nothing more than a robot, and the General Assembly can come in and program the robot any way they want."
Charnes also argued that a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision prevents state legislatures from rewriting spending rules attached to federal money.
But Toal turned the argument around, asking if Sanford was trying to change how the money was used by paying off debt. The White House twice told the governor he could not pay off debt with stimulus money, she said, but Sanford was trying to force lawmakers to do so.
S.C. Deputy Attorney General Robert Cook, representing the state in one of the two lawsuits, said the issue is whether Congress intended to pre-empt state law.
Cook told the justices he didn't believe the federal law pre-empts a state law passed last month requiring the governor to apply for the money. He also said that under prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings, federal law can't override normal state legislative procedures — which gives the General Assembly all budgeting authority — if federal law is unclear.
"All doubt has to be resolved in favor of the state (law)," Cook said.
A decision by the S.C. Supreme Court against the governor would end the long debate.
Sanford said Monday he would not appeal an unfavorable ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that he expected to lose. His office also said the governor would withdraw a related federal lawsuit he filed last month if the state Supreme Court ruled against him.
Attorneys on both sides said after the hearing that they were optimistic, and did not feel the case had been prejudged.
School officials have warned that hundreds of teachers statewide could face layoffs, resulting in larger class sizes, if the state doesn't receive the stimulus money. Lexington 1 has delayed laying off teachers until the case is decided.
About 82 percent of the money is mandated by the federal government for K-12 and higher education programs. The remainder is designated for "government services," including public safety and school repair projects.
The state Legislature has earmarked $4 million of the first approximate $350 million for the Judicial Department, which includes the Supreme Court. Most state public safety agencies' budgets were cut, with most of the difference made up by stimulus money.
Dick Harpootlian, attorney for the two Midlands students, said the issue needed resolution.
"The only unanswered question is 'why?'" Harpootlian said of the dispute. "It doesn't make any sense legally or politically."
Reach Brundrett at (803) 771-8484 or by email at rbrundrett@thestate.com. Reach O'Connor at (803) 771-8358 or be email at joconnor@thestate.com .
The State