rss
mobile
Feeds
In the case of Gov. Mark Sanford, we haven't seen anything that meets that test.
State lawmakers would do better to drop their impeachment efforts and let any potential punishment of Sanford come from two other tracks -- the state Ethics Commission investigation into Sanford's travel and campaign spending and the attorney general's review of that same information for possible criminal prosecution.
Sanford should resign; he should have done so this summer. But he's not going to do it, and this state can't afford the time, the cost and the distractions of an ill-fated impeachment effort. It's already costing taxpayers $150 an hour for a lawyer from Connecticut to protect the "office of the governor."
Sanford can't run for governor again, and does anyone really think he will run for any elective office in the future? If he does, the voters will decide his fate.
The S.C. constitution states that serious crimes or other serious misconduct are the only reasons for impeachment. The 37 charges outlined in the Ethics Commission report fall short of that.
Flying first class or business class on overseas flights might be politically tone deaf and hypocritical from a governor who insisted state employees share hotel rooms to save money, but it does not justify tossing him out of office.
The charge of dereliction of duty for Sanford's leaving the state without telling anyone also doesn't seem an impeachable offense. No emergency occurred in his absence. He was summoned back after five days, proving he could be contacted.
The trip showed very bad judgment, both personally and professionally, but is it really enough to forcibly remove him from office?
No South Carolina governor has ever been impeached. In the past 80 years, only two governors nationally have been impeached, attorney Ross Garber, defender of the governor's office, tells us. In both those cases, they faced felony criminal charges.
Sanford may be many things, but he's no Rod Blagojevich.
We won't see a resolution of the ethics investigation until January or February, and Sanford and his lawyers seem likely to contest that.
He faces a maximum penalty of $2,000 per count if found guilty of each charge.
A subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee plans to make its recommendation on impeachment in December. If the subcommittee gives it a favorable report, it will go to the full Judiciary Committee, where a majority vote could send it to the floor of the House in January.
If two-thirds of House members agree to impeach, Sanford would be suspended. The Senate would hold a trial that would require a two-thirds vote to remove the governor from office.
Sanford now has 13 months left in office. His game plan seems to be to play out this process for as long as legally possible.
The longer it takes, the better it is for Sanford, but the worse it is for the state.
What should be the primary issue -- and why we called for the governor to resign in early July -- is that South Carolina needs a fully engaged governor and a fully engaged legislature to tackle the issues facing our state.
The employment situation has only worsened in the five months since Sanford returned from his tryst in Argentina. The state's unemployment rate stands today at more than 12 percent.
Sanford's ineffectiveness as governor would only be exacerbated by a legislature focused on removing him.
You could view giving up on impeachment as a victory for Sanford, but continuing this distraction for months certainly would be a defeat for efforts to improve the economic welfare of the people of South Carolina
