House plan adds some but not all transparency needed

South Carolina state House members adopted a rule this week that will better enable their constituents to evaluate the voting records of their representatives, but which falls short of the full transparency needed.

State lawmakers have been under fire for taking too few recorded votes. These voice votes include the will of the entire body in the record but not the stand taken by individual representatives.

Voters need to be able to know how their representative voted on a bill or budget issue. They need to be able to determine whether their representative was faithful to the promises he made on the campaign trail, whether he held to the principles he said he would uphold in Columbia.

Legislative leaders responded with a new rule this week that requires recorded votes on a variety of issues. Recorded votes will be necessary for any measure that increases the budget by $10,000 or more, any bill that establishes or changes a state tax or fee, any bill that affects lawmakers’ compensation or benefits, and several other categories.

Gov. Mark Sanford says the bill is too complicated, that lawmakers should simply call for a recorded vote on the final approval of each bill.

But the legislative process isn’t that simple. Much of the work done in the legislature comes through amendments of bills. Voters can learn more about the spending priorities of a lawmaker by looking at his votes on budget amendments than by looking at his vote on the final budget. A lawmaker may vote for final passage of a popular bill, showing that he supports it. But a review of that lawmaker’s votes on amendments may show that he did his level best to weaken and gut it.

Votes on amendments need to be included, but votes on every amendment can’t be included because that would bog down the House and Senate. The rule adopted this week is an attempt to draw that line.

But while a recorded vote on every amendment would be a burden, a recorded vote on the final passage of every bill other than ceremonial legislation would be worthwhile. That would ensure an additional level of accountability.

Also problematic is the provision in the new rule that assumes each House member voted yes on voice votes unless he informs the clerk of the House that he voted no. Representatives who aren’t in the House for the vote but neglected to ask for leave will have yes votes recorded for them. Members who oppose a bill but forget to take the additional step of having their opposition noted will be recorded in support of the bill. This provision is unnecessary and should be deleted from the rule. It obscures the transparency the House is trying to move toward.

Spartanburg Herald-Journal
December 4, 2008