Term limits could fix gerrymandering hijinks
To the editor:
What was exposed in your editorial [6/24: Start now to fix gerrymandering’s ills] is that the singularly most significant problem in this country is the absence of term limits for lawmakers. I agree gerrymandering has been hijacked by ruthless lawmakers on both sides of the aisles. It conveniently explains how lawmakers can be unsympathetic and unresponsive to 90 percent of Americans who prefer added measures of gun control, and as you stated and most unfortunate, “protects incumbents who want to keep power without significant challenges.”
What is needed in this country is a Brexit-type campaign to impose term limits with ethics reform requiring lawmakers to reveal all sources and amounts of income once elected and each year in office. It would be interesting to know their net worth when first elected versus their worth when they eventually leave. Lawmakers will never find the intestinal fortitude to pass term limits themselves. Too many of them are simply unscrupulous, greedy, self-serving, pompous, corrupt panderers who could care less about the quality of life in their districts unless they themselves, family members or friends somehow profit. Without term limits this breed of lawmakers, quite satisfied with term limits for governors and the president, reigns supreme in the legislatures.
An absence of term limits has created such entrenched relationships based solely on expanding power and profits for the status quo. These relationships and resulting policies are, in no uncertain terms, cornerstone for the economic divide in this country. One might actually see the rationale for “trickle down” tax breaks for corporations and businesses for new job creation, but why did individuals, i.e., corporate executives, university presidents, professional coaches and others earning exorbitant salaries, received tax breaks as well? Why are FICA taxes not withheld from an individual’s payroll check after they earn some amount just above $100,000? Why are/were sales taxes capped at $300 on vehicle purchases in the state? I never understood the rationale for property tax relief in the state, with few exceptions, that clearly benefits the wealthiest property owners. Policies like these, like corporate tax loopholes, help the rich get richer, and the wealthy, wealthier. We can thank these seasoned lawmakers for growing the income gap in this country.
— Name withheld upon request, Kingstree, S.C.
Politicians need to let go of redistricting
To the editor,
Your article describing the damage that gerrymandering does to our democratic processes was both accurate and timely . Timely because, as you point out, in a few years the national census will once again ( near the end of each decade ) require our state and others to redraw voting district lines to accommodate new population figures.
A handful of states no longer allow their state legislatures to control the redistricting process. Instead , they have created independent commissions that fulfill this responsibility to help ensure that self-serving elected officials can’t ” horse trade ” among themselves to create gerrymandered ” safe districts ” that keep incumbents in power.
Predictably, the state legislature in one of these states-Arizona, sought to do away with their commission by bringing forth legal action asserting that the U.S. Constitution assigns the redistricting task exclusively to state legislatures. In the summer of 2015 , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Arizona legislature saying that independent redistricting commissions are , indeed, constitutional.
So, if you really want to do away with gerrymandering in South Carolina (or anywhere else, for that matter), pressure state legislators to put the question of the creation of an independent redistricting commission for South Carolina on the ballot. Of course , if that happened, it would — in all likelihood — receive overwhelming voter approval, which is also why it will — in all likelihood — require sustained and energetic public pressure on our elected officials if we are ever to be afforded the opportunity to say “yes” or “no” to gerrymandering in South Carolina.
— Jim Rex,chair, The American Party of South Carolina, Winnsboro, S.C.
Stop practice of minority reports in Senate
To the editor:
The practice of filing minority reports in the Senate should be revoked. This method of killing bills in the Senate is counterproductive to good government. It gives entirely too much power to one senator to kill a bill if he/she does not agree with it.
The only reason to file a minority report is that a senator believes the bill will be approved by a majority of Senate votes. This is not in the best interests of the citizens of South Carolina. It is the power of kings and dictators. It is not conducive to good government and promotes stopping any progress as opposed to moving things forward. Even the governor can have a veto overturned by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, so effectively, this gives the senator who opts to use a minority report more power than the governor of the state.
I also believe that, most of the time, a minority report is filed to promote the personal interests of a senator or a special interest group and the senator who files one is not promoting the best interests of the citizens of this state. It is like saying, “If you don’t do things my way, I will take my ball and go home.”
The atmosphere in the Senate should be conducive to passing bills, not killing them. This is the reason that very little legislation gets moved out of the Senate and why there is such gridlock! There are many grassroots movements in this state that work very hard to get a bill passed only to have it die in the Senate due to one minority report. It is past time for this practice to come to an end and for South Carolina to move into this century. At the very least, if a senator chooses to file a minority report, they should show just cause for such an objection publicly and then ask for the bill to be debated before an up or down vote is required. Every bill — and I mean EVERY bill — deserves an up or down vote. The majority should rule.
— Wyman Oxner, Orangeburg, S.C.
Send us a letter. We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information.
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!